Thanks for your comment. The WS Description Working Group tracked this
issue as a CR064 [1].
Changes as detailed below are reflected in the latest draft [2].
Unless you let us know otherwise by the end of October, we will assume you
agree with the resolution of this issue.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR064
[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html
Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Barclay
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 3:10 PM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: WSDL 2.0 primer CR comments
>
>
>
> The WSDL 2.0 Primer CR contains a number of editorial errors:
>
> * Sections 1.3's heading says "Use of URI and IRI." Since the section
> talks
> about URIs and IRIs, and not about the words "URI" and "IRI," the
> section
> title should probably say "Use of URIs and IRIs."
fixed
> * Section 2.1.1 says:
>
> ... a floating point number in USD$ ...
>
> "USD$" should be "USD" (or some other valid option).
fixed
> (Also, is "floating point number" valid outside the realm of fixed-size
> storage with an exponent field?)
Either way the text seems clear enough as is.
>
> * Section 2.2 says:
>
> A language specification must therefore define the set sentences
> in that language ...
>
> That should be "... set of sentences ..."
fixed
> * Section 2.2.2.1 says:
>
> ... how the children elements of the description element ...
>
> That should say "child elements" instead of "children elements"
> (because
> that use of a noun as an adjective requires the singular form).
fixed
> * Section 2.2.2.1 also says:
>
> Thus, the order of the WSDL 2.0 elements matters, in spite of
> what the WSDL 2.0 schema says.
>
> The wording "in spite of ..." implies that there is a contradiction,
> namely, that the schema implies that the order does not matter, and
> that what the schema implies is to be ignored.
>
> Perhaps saying something like "... the order ... matters, even though
> the schema doesn't specify that it does" would avoid implying something
> false to the reader.
Fixed: "... even though the WSDL 2.0 schema does not capture this
constraint."
> * Section 2.2.3 says:
>
> (Whew!).
>
> The period (full stop) is extraneous. (The exclamation point already
> ends the statement.)
fixed
> * Section 2.3.3 says:
>
> So far we have briefly covered both WSDL import/include and schema
> import/include.
>
> Since slash means (or usually means) "or" (recall, for example, that
> "and/or," which means "and or or"), that should be written out as "...
> WSDL import and include and schema import and include" (also because
> text should probably be readable without having to figure out to
> which word a punctuation character was intended to map).
fixed
> * Section 4.4.1 says:
>
> ... is signaled by attribute wsdl:required="false" ...
>
> That wording isn't quite right. The construct "attribute xyz" only
> works when "xyz" is the name of the attribute.
>
> The text should say something like:
>
> ... is signaled by setting attribute wsdl:required to "false" ...
>
> or:
>
> ... is signaled by setting wsdl:required="false" ...
>
> or:
>
> ... is signaled by wsdl:required="false" ...
>
> (The next paragraph has another instance of the same problem.)
Fixed (the final suggestion seemed most readable to me.)
> * Section 4.2.3 still says:
>
> <min 3, max 7> <!-- check schema for syntax -->
Fixed
<minInclusive value="3"/>
<maxInclusive value="7"/>
> * Section 5.1 repeatedly refers to "uniquely identify[ing] a message"
> when it really means uniquely identifying a message _type_. For
> example, the first sentence says:
>
> It is desirable for a message recipient to have the capability
> to uniquely identify a message in order to handle it correctly.
>
> That makes it sound like it's about to talk about per-message IDs
> (per-instance IDs).
>
> The wording should be reworked appropriately.
Fixed throughout section 5.1
> * Section 5.2 says:
>
> ... a wide ranging debate ...
>
> That should be:
>
> ... a wide-ranging debate ...
>
fixed
>
> Additionally:
>
> * Section 5.6.2 refers to RFC 2396, which has been obsolete for
> over a year. The section should probably refer to RFC 3986.
Fixed.
>
>
> Daniel Barclay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>